Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Jjohnso11 wrote:
If you have half a brain you break down the armies into five or six individual units and move them as such. I understand that having ten to twenty models per unit is a little confusing but that doesn't complicate it. Unless it's easier for you to only use 2-3, but I'd say 5-6 is probably average for AoS. Pretty close for 40K as well. If for those 5-6 you had to learn 5-6 pages of rules that's super easy=AoS. 40k=3-4 FAQs, main rule book, codex, supplement easily equating to 100+ pages at the minimum. How can anyone playing 40k complain about bespoke rules when every tournament directs players to have all sources available?

And follow their bolted on efforts to make sense of the madness.

Jjohnso11 wrote:
If for those 5-6 you had to learn 5-6 pages of rules that's super easy=AoS. 40k=3-4 FAQs, main rule book, codex, supplement easily equating to 100+ pages at the minimum. How can anyone playing 40k complain about bespoke rules when every tournament directs players to have all sources available?

And again we're back to AoS's merits being "well it's better than 40k", as if I ever held 40k up as a gold standard

I'm less cut up about 40k being reworked than I was about WHFB being reworked, because, well, I thought WHFB was at its core still a good game (8th edition screwed it up for me and I didn't play after 7th, but it was still a good basis for a game IMO).

40k on the other hand I'm quite happy to get completely reworked. I've been saying it needs to be reworked for a bloody decade or so. I just don't want to see it being reworked as "Age of Sigmar 40,000" as AoS is a game that holds even less appeal to me at its core than 40k does. I'm not saying AoS doesn't do some things better than 40k, I just don't like it as being a basis for what 40k should be.

Lots of good discussion here. There are a few things that I think are worth discussing. The first is GW's commitment to doing annual handbooks for AOS. If they do this for 40k it will allows for fairly regular balancing of the game. If all they do is increase the points of the top 10 percent of units and decrease the points on the the bottom 10 percent then after a few years we will have a much more balanced game than we do now.

It also allows them to give a shot in the arm to under performing armies without needing to commit to putting out a new codex. The fyreslayers in AOS being a case in point.

GW's increasingly active presence in the tournament scene should help them to get a good idea of what needs to be tweaked.

There is a lot of talk about bravery with horde armies and the problems it causes, but little talk of the perks. Horde armies often gain additional attacks or improved hit and wound rolls for fighting in large units. On top of that there are the various abilities that leaders have to either reduce the effect of battle shock or maximise the perks of large units.

AOS is by now means a perfect game, but a lot of good work has brought it from the terrible launch to pretty good position now.
In a way AOS has kind of been a beta test for the new 40k.

Not sure what we can expect in detail after GW's announcement that some game mechanik will change.
Actually, I like the AoS system. Its not perfect but some genuine ideas are in there. Its simplicity in terms of the ruleset is priceless.
My guess is that 40k will be made different by changing some rules but not AoSified.

Reintroduction of movement stat, armour saving throw modifiers and weapons causing multiple wounds? Well, 2nd had all of this and it is good to see these rules implemented again in the next edition.

People should worry about the possibility of fixed to-hit & to wound rolls like in AoS. Let´s hear what Private Hudson has to say about this horror scenario and it´s consequences for 40K as a whole:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsx2vdn7gpY

 Strg Alt wrote:

People should worry about the possibility of fixed to-hit & to wound rolls like in AoS.

What do you hit on with Ballistic Skill 3?
What do you wound on with Poisoned weapons, unless something is a Gargantuan or Vehicle?

"Fixed to-hit and wound rolls" have been a part of 40k for a long time. Ballistic Skill is a "fixed to hit & wound roll". There are certain instances where you get modifiers for or against it(Overwatch and Invisibility reducing it to BS1, certain Psyker abilities or special rules for units/characters granting +1/2/3/whatever to BS).

Wounding is also a "fixed" value. It just does it comparatively all the time, leading to the mathhammer of "what weapon is best".

Indeed - good points.

Lets face it in H-T-hand we pretty much have everyone hitting on 3's or 4's anyway - with the insanity of match ups like Avatars, Bloodthirsters and Primarchs missing their Gretchin opponent on a 1 or a 2.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

People should worry about the possibility of fixed to-hit & to wound rolls like in AoS.

What do you hit on with Ballistic Skill 3?
What do you wound on with Poisoned weapons, unless something is a Gargantuan or Vehicle?

"Fixed to-hit and wound rolls" have been a part of 40k for a long time. Ballistic Skill is a "fixed to hit & wound roll". There are certain instances where you get modifiers for or against it(Overwatch and Invisibility reducing it to BS1, certain Psyker abilities or special rules for units/characters granting +1/2/3/whatever to BS).

Wounding is also a "fixed" value. It just does it comparatively all the time, leading to the mathhammer of "what weapon is best".

the fear of fixed to wound rolls is the AoS way of doing
the Defensive value of the target is armour, while the "to wound" roll depends only on the strength and is limited to 5 values (2+ - 6+)
so the difference between a Grot and a Phantom Knight would be the armour save and nothing else


a fixed value, were the roll needed is on the opponents models (like in LoTR, Warpath, FoW), is no problem

 kodos wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

People should worry about the possibility of fixed to-hit & to wound rolls like in AoS.

What do you hit on with Ballistic Skill 3?
What do you wound on with Poisoned weapons, unless something is a Gargantuan or Vehicle?

"Fixed to-hit and wound rolls" have been a part of 40k for a long time. Ballistic Skill is a "fixed to hit & wound roll". There are certain instances where you get modifiers for or against it(Overwatch and Invisibility reducing it to BS1, certain Psyker abilities or special rules for units/characters granting +1/2/3/whatever to BS).

Wounding is also a "fixed" value. It just does it comparatively all the time, leading to the mathhammer of "what weapon is best".

the fear of fixed to wound rolls is the AoS way of doing
the Defensive value of the target is armour, while the "to wound" roll depends only on the strength and is limited to 5 values (2+ - 6+)
so the difference between a Grot and a Phantom Knight would be the armour save and nothing else

And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.

I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.

 Kanluwen wrote:

No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.

So it gets just an Feel No Pain roll additional to the armour save to compensate the "a imperial guard lasgun wounds everything on 5+" and make it less vulnerable than a Grot instead of just keeping a Strength/Toughness table were Strength 3 just cannot wound Toughness 6+ (or instead of just roll to wound against the defensive value of the Phantomknight which is 8+ and you need +2 Penetration, Rend or whatever to wound it on a 6+)

I don't see how this is not a bad idea or were the huge improvement is.

it makes things simpler, but removes a lot of the diversity in 40k (and there is already not much left any more)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I mean, do you really think they're going to

this is still GW.
those guys that miss important stuff in the rules (and never read their own books) or use houserules to playtest formations (because RAW it is unplayable but they don't bother to write this in a FAQ), or give us buildings that are unusable in the game because it will take 2 turns and a lucky dice roll to reach a level were models can be placed.

I think they will just forget and oversee a lot of thinks if they don't get some external players at least to cross-read or check the new rules before they print them

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.

I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.

So, in the end, it's a simplification of some core mechanics... and then another pile up of a ton of special rules.

As I've said before, the more you can represent and solve with the core mechanics and rules, the better. Only add special rules that modify said core mechanics when absolutely mandatory and unavoidable.

The GW way seems to be quite the opposite, though. Nothing is cool without half a dozen special rules printed in its profile (obviously, at least one of said special rules will itself represent three more special rules combined).

I understand some people simple know no other way than the GW way, of couse.

 Korinov wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.

I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.

So, in the end, it's a simplification of some core mechanics... and then another pile up of a ton of special rules.

As I've said before, the more you can represent and solve with the core mechanics and rules, the better. Only add special rules that modify said core mechanics when absolutely mandatory and unavoidable.

The GW way seems to be quite the opposite, though. Nothing is cool without half a dozen special rules printed in its profile (obviously, at least one of said special rules will itself represent three more special rules combined).

I understand some people simple know no other way than the GW way, of couse.

Its not just GW - Malifuax has basic mechnics but many many of the individual units change things and interactions - couple with synergy bonuses - same as AOS. They ALL have special rules and tricks

Yes Malifaux is a skirmish game but with a card for each unit type you would not have that many more unique uinits than you do with Malfaux.

Now hopefully new 40K comes with Army card packs - something that AOS was missing (officially) until recently as this makes it all easier - certianly better than trying to constantly flick through half a dozen codexes or even worse squinting at someones phone becuase everything is digital.

@ Kanluwen:

Examples for Hth-combat in 40K 3rd-5th:

Guardsman (WS 3/S3) vs. Grot (WS2/T2): Guardsman hits Grot on 3+ & wounds on 3+.

Guardsman (WS 3/S3) vs. Space Marine (WS4/T4): Guardsman hits Space Marine on 4+ & wounds on 5+.

Guardsman (WS 3/S3) vs. Bloodthirster (WS10/T6; 5th): Guardsman hits Bloodthirster on 5+ & wounds on 6+.

These few examples show that it is crucial for the Guardsman what kind of opponent he will face in 40K 3rd+ close combat. In AoS his to-hit & to-wound rolls against all opponents are fixed. It doesn´t matter if he squares off against cannon fodder (Grot) or a killing machine (Bloodthirster). This kills immersion for me and therefore it is not a thing I would like to see in a future edition.


[bRanged Combat in 40K 3rd-5th:[/b]

To-Hit: There is no to-hit modifier in the basic rules (cover of target, range, speed of target, speed of the shooter). There might be some special rules (USR, equipment) and that is it. Just a bad design mechanic. 2nd was clearly superior in this regard.

You even have silly situations like this one:
1. A Space Marine without cover gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.
2. A Space Marine in cover (Forest 5+; depends on edition) gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.

There is no benefit for the Space Marine to be in cover because he can either use his AS 3+ or his cover save 5+ but not both. So he will naturally use the better save. This fosters a gung-ho playing style which is just plain obnoxious. To-hit modifiers like in 2nd would be much appreciated in the next edition but you can´t expect wonders from GW.

To-wound: same as in close combat (see above).

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.

I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.

So we simplify the rules to the point we need special rules to regain basic functionality that already exists within the core rules? Yeah, not sounding too appealing.

People are already talking about how they want more granularity in 40k. Having a separate to hit, to wound and to save that are based on both the attacker/weapon's offensive ability and the target's defensive ability is how we squeeze granularity out of the system without resorting to D20's.

Hell, you mentioned Bs as being one "fixed value" roll that we currently have, I'd argue that we should maybe go the other way where Bs could also be variable based on the target's initiative***.


*** and I'd probably remove initiative from affecting close combat, at the moment initiative and weapon skill in CC seem like redundant stats, they're both measures of a model's skill in CC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Strg Alt wrote:

Spoiler:

You even have silly situations like this one:
1. A Space Marine without cover gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.
2. A Space Marine in cover (Forest 5+; depends on edition) gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.

There is no benefit for the Space Marine to be in cover because he can either use his AS 3+ or his cover save 5+ but not both. So he will naturally use the better save. This fosters a gung-ho playing style which is just plain obnoxious. To-hit modifiers like in 2nd would be much appreciated in the next edition but you can´t expect wonders from GW.

To-wound: same as in close combat (see above).

I'm pretty sure removing the effectiveness of cover to armoured troops was the whole purpose of getting rid of "to hit" modifiers in 3rd edition. GW designers wanted to see Space Marines walking bravely down the middle of the battlefield rather than taking cover. Of course 20 years of that when every 2nd army you play against is Space Marines and it gets a bit old.

An easy way to make cover important for models with a good save without massively changing the game is just to make saves stack, where you can take multiple saves to ward off an attack. So a Space Marine would take a cover save first and if that's failed they still get to take their armour save.

[bRanged Combat in 40K 3rd-5th:[/b]

To-Hit: There is no to-hit modifier in the basic rules (cover of target, range, speed of target, speed of the shooter). There might be some special rules (USR, equipment) and that is it. Just a bad design mechanic. 2nd was clearly superior in this regard.

You even have silly situations like this one:
1. A Space Marine without cover gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.
2. A Space Marine in cover (Forest 5+; depends on edition) gets shot by a Guardsman with a lasgun.

There is no benefit for the Space Marine to be in cover because he can either use his AS 3+ or his cover save 5+ but not both. So he will naturally use the better save. This fosters a gung-ho playing style which is just plain obnoxious. To-hit modifiers like in 2nd would be much appreciated in the next edition but you can´t expect wonders from GW.

To-wound: same as in close combat (see above).

Actually this fits the fluff perfectly IMO, the warrior in Power Armour or similar only uses cover if he or she needs to - say when facing Anti-tank class weapons. Makes complete sense to me.

Personally I think the full range of to hit mods you are discussing are best in a skimrish game like Necromunda (or the new version)

hese few examples show that it is crucial for the Guardsman what kind of opponent he will face in 40K 3rd+ close combat. In AoS his to-hit & to-wound rolls against all opponents are fixed. It doesn´t matter if he squares off against cannon fodder (Grot) or a killing machine (Bloodthirster). This kills immersion for me and therefore it is not a thing I would like to see in a future edition.

It does equally break immersion for me when you can have a BloodThirster tryong to hit a Grethin in single combat and only managing it 2/3 of the time!!

Making Ini the value of how good you can doge attacks instead of removing it would be nice.

WS/BS VS Ini gives you the "to hit" roll
S VS T is "to wound"

both tables have a +/-2 cap, so WS 7 VS Ini 3 auto hits etc

Solid Cover gives a bonus to your armour save (instead of just being additional one) which would work better with an ASM value (Bolter with -1 to AS gets countered by light cover that add +1 AS)
not solid cover (like smoke, jink etc) adds X to Ini

and no such things are not for small Skirmish only, but work also well for Mass Skirmish games (Warmachine, Starship Troopers etc)

And lets not forget that even after GHB came out AoS still isn't in the best selling miniature list for north america.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35145/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-spring-2016

I mean we've heard how everyone came back to it after the GHB was released but there's no proof backing it up beyond personal testimony.

An AoSified 40k could well do the same level of damage, i dont think GW would really do well with both main products in such a state.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.

I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.

So we simplify the rules to the point we need special rules to regain basic functionality that already exists within the core rules? Yeah, not sounding too appealing.

That's how I felt at first with AoS, but it really grows on you.

It also lets there be some thematic rules that don't exactly 'work' right now; like where a unit of Gretchin get a better save/LD value for being in larger numbers or rules letting them up the save of nearby Orks or whatever.

There's room for a lot of weirdness in AoS that only works because they don't use USRs but instead they use rules specific to the unit.

People are already talking about how they want more granularity in 40k. Having a separate to hit, to wound and to save that are based on both the attacker/weapon's offensive ability and the target's defensive ability is how we squeeze granularity out of the system without resorting to D20's.

And those same people usually complain about needing a hundred different books to know everything.

As it stands, I can figure out the special rules of a unit without needing to consult the BRB or that army book* in AoS.

Admittedly this might be changing with the relics and whatnot, but few books have them at the moment.

Hell, you mentioned Bs as being one "fixed value" roll that we currently have, I'd argue that we should maybe go the other way where Bs could also be variable based on the target's initiative***.
*** and I'd probably remove initiative from affecting close combat, at the moment initiative and weapon skill in CC seem like redundant stats, they're both measures of a model's skill in CC.

I've always been of the opinion that Initiative is an underused stat outside of CC.

It would have been a perfect counter to Markerlights. Oh well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And the special rules of said Grot and Phantom Knight.

I mean, do you really think they're going to leave the Phantom Knight vulnerable to small arms fire like everyone is saying?
No. It would likely get a special rule that made it so it can, on a D6 roll of 4 or better, shrug off any wound with a certain Rend value or something.

So, in the end, it's a simplification of some core mechanics... and then another pile up of a ton of special rules.

Quick, tell me what makes Zealot different from Fearless.

The reason 40k has so many USRs right now is that many of them are just slight iterations of the other, or with one or two things added to an existing USR.

As I've said before, the more you can represent and solve with the core mechanics and rules, the better. Only add special rules that modify said core mechanics when absolutely mandatory and unavoidable.

Except the more you represent and "solve" with the core mechanics and rules, the more watered down the overall play experience is. When every unit and every weapon act in the same
manner, why bother playing anything other than X army?

By contrast, a Swifthawk Agents force heavy on Sea Guard and Shadow Warriors plays radically different to a Wanderers force heavy on Eternal Guard, and Glade Guard.
Why?

Because the special rules on each of those units makes them behave differently.
The forces more or less function the same(Sea Guard are basically Eternal Guard with Bows, Glade Guard are more numerous Shadow Warriors)...yet Arcane Bodkins mean that the Glade Guard can behave in a different manner than the Shadow Warriors and the Sea Guard can be whittling the enemy down before they get into CC while the Eternal Guard can active "Fortress of Boughs" and be far more tanky than they have a right to be.

The GW way seems to be quite the opposite, though. Nothing is cool without half a dozen special rules printed in its profile (obviously, at least one of said special rules will itself represent three more special rules combined).

I understand some people simple know no other way than the GW way, of couse.

Yes, because that's what it is. AoS rules are great because it's GW. You caught me.

hobojebus wrote:
And lets not forget that even after GHB came out AoS still isn't in the best selling miniature list for north america.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35145/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-spring-2016

I mean we've heard how everyone came back to it after the GHB was released but there's no proof backing it up beyond personal testimony.

An AoSified 40k could well do the same level of damage, i dont think GW would really do well with both main products in such a state.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016

Oooh look.

 kodos wrote:
Making Ini the value of how good you can doge attacks instead of removing it would be nice.

WS/BS VS Ini gives you the "to hit" roll
S VS T is "to wound"

both tables have a +/-2 cap, so WS 7 VS Ini 3 auto hits etc

Solid Cover gives a bonus to your armour save (instead of just being additional one) which would work better with an ASM value (Bolter with -1 to AS gets countered by light cover that add +1 AS)
not solid cover (like smoke, jink etc) adds X to Ini

and no such things are not for small Skirmish only, but work also well for Mass Skirmish games (Warmachine, Starship Troopers etc)

It does screw over races like Orks who are actually good at fighting but not high I CLose combat is about parrying etc as much as dodging - now you could use it for missile attacks which would be interesting I think. BS vs I

Thats pretty much how cover works in AOS.

re varied modifiers - It depends on the number of models - it does kinda work in Bolt Action so maybe you are right - woudl need to try it.

TonyL707 wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
And lets not forget that even after GHB came out AoS still isn't in the best selling miniature list for north america.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35145/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-spring-2016

I mean we've heard how everyone came back to it after the GHB was released but there's no proof backing it up beyond personal testimony.

An AoSified 40k could well do the same level of damage, i dont think GW would really do well with both main products in such a state.

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016

Oooh look.

He'll respond by claiming that isn't as high as WHFB was at its peak (2011, 3rd place) despite the article attached to this ranking stating the market has been growing for five years in a row (well, 8, 5 since 2011) and thus it's likely to be occupying a bigger volume, despite not having the same percentage of the pie.

 Mr Morden wrote:

It does screw over races like Orks who are actually good at fighting but not high I CLose combat is about parrying etc as much as dodging - now you could use it for missile attacks which would be interesting I think. BS vs I

really?
of course it you need to redistribute values because now there is no worse "to hit" in melee than 4+
and Orcs are massive which makes them more easy to hit than some small Grots which is now shown by Ini and that low Ini attacks last. If this is gone and the attacker strike first melee works different.

But Orcs being WS 4 and Ini 2 VS SM with WS4 and Ini4, let the Orcs hit on 4+ while being hit on 2+ by Marines. And there is balance because the number of Orcs is usually higher.

and of course this would be a Dark Eldars dream because low armour and toughness but hard to hit makes them viable again

 Mr Morden wrote:

re varied modifiers - It depends on the number of models

it depends more on how clear and streamlined the rules are.
if all tables are the same, you just need to remember the +/-2 and and the what kind of modifier change armour and to hit nothing more
and of course, to hit modifiers should always work the same no matter if in range or melee to keep it simple (and of course, close combat in fog should affect the to hit value the same way as shooting something behind smoke, or attacking with a wall in between)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TonyL707 wrote:

http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/36971/top-5-non-collectible-miniature-games-fall-2016
Oooh look.

and how to we know that this rising is because of more people playing AoS and not because more people buy GW models to play something else?
for Warmachine/Horde, X-Wing and 40k this is clear because there are not other common system that use the same models, while Fantasy stuff, we have several Skirmish games and 2 mass battle games were a lot of people still buy the GW Fantasy stuff.

I have seen here more Kings of War/T9A armies using Stormcast Eternals than people playing AoS in total

Guys guys... and what if... they aren't gonna introduce fixed to wound and to hit rols in 40K?

Think about it. If they want that in 40k, why they don't just say it in the post? They talk about other AoS rules like battleshock and Rend etc...

So, why not talk about fixed rolls? That its a big thing, if you are wonna remake the 40K rulesystem its not a thing that you can say at the end "oh yeah that will be cool". All the system should be based in it.

So I don't think GW will introduce fixed to hit and to wound rolls in 40k.

And, in a personal level, I like special rules in my units, but thats maybe because I'm a RPG player first, and I love when my units are special snowflakes

And if I remember correctly... every unit in Fantasy and 40k has special rules, they just have it asociated with a generic entry in the rulebook instead of in their own profile, glued to his weapon option, or written in his army book/codex page. Not that its a bad thing.

 Galas wrote:
Guys guys... and what if... they aren't gonna introduce fixed to wound and to hit rols in 40K?

Think about it. If they want that in 40k, why they don't just say it in the post? They talk about other AoS rules like battleshock and Rend etc...

So, why not talk about fixed rolls? That its a big thing, if you are wonna remake the 40K rulesystem its not a thing that you can say at the end "oh yeah that will be cool". All the system should be based in it.

So I don't think GW will introduce fixed to hit and to wound rolls in 40k.

Yeah I don't necessarily think GW are going to introduce fixed wounds, we're just discussing the options more than actually having the expectation GW are going to do it, they might, they might not.

The big one I dislike is using Battleshock more than anything.

And, in a personal level, I like special rules in my units, but thats maybe because I'm a RPG player first, and I love when my units are special snowflakes

Yeah it's probably the RPG thing. I like the idea that my units are special snowflakes, but I can deal with it only being the IDEA. Like, my imagination can picture them being special snowflakes without me having a rule saying "hey look, we're special snowflakes".

I find reading through the AoS Warscrolls painful with all their special rules, it's not appealing to me at all. On the one hand it's nice GW put all the rules for a unit on the card, but IMO there's still just way too many modifications and interruptions to core rules written within individual unit's rules.

I prefer it if the core rules are comprehensive enough to give variety without needing to use special rules. Want to make a model immune to small arms fire? Just up the toughness, no need to introduce a special rule saying it's immune to small arms fire.

I reckon special rules should be reserved for things that, err, are actually special I'm fine with the idea of Terminators getting special armour rules because they're supposed to be out of the ordinary. I'm also fine with a couple of army specific rules, as in, rules that apply to every unit within an army so you don't have to screw around chasing rules for individual units. Like Lizardmen with their Cold Bloodedness and Scaly Skin, or Bretonnians with their Lance Formation, or Space Marines with Rapid Fire (back when Rapid Fire was something only Space Marines could do).

And if I remember correctly... every unit in Fantasy and 40k has special rules, they just have it asociated with a generic entry in the rulebook instead of in their own profile, glued to his weapon option, or written in his army book/codex page. Not that its a bad thing.

WHFB wasn't nearly as bad as 40k. I mean, obviously every unit had a weapon and that weapon had rules, but the WHFB weapon rules fitted on a page and after a game or two you knew what all the weapon options were.

But 40k is a mess of special rules, to the point where they don't even feel special anymore.

I heard from my FLGS that the new edition should be dropping this fall (can't remember if they specified a month, but I'd imagine September or early October), but it will be more of a remake of 2nd/3rd edition than full on AoS. Make of that what you will, but that gives us another half a year to bicker, argue, and speculate until GW throws the rumormongers another bone

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I heard from my FLGS that the new edition should be dropping this fall (can't remember if they specified a month, but I'd imagine September or early October), but it will be more of a remake of 2nd/3rd edition than full on AoS. Make of that what you will, but that gives us another half a year to bicker, argue, and speculate until GW throws the rumormongers another bone

From a video they said June or July.
I stopped my 40k activities other than playing.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I heard from my FLGS that the new edition should be dropping this fall (can't remember if they specified a month, but I'd imagine September or early October), but it will be more of a remake of 2nd/3rd edition than full on AoS. Make of that what you will, but that gives us another half a year to bicker, argue, and speculate until GW throws the rumormongers another bone

From a video they said June or July.
I stopped my 40k activities other than playing.

There was a thread in N&R that said GW staff had blacked out holiday dates June 3rd through 17th. I'd bet that's the ETA for 8th there.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I heard from my FLGS that the new edition should be dropping this fall (can't remember if they specified a month, but I'd imagine September or early October), but it will be more of a remake of 2nd/3rd edition than full on AoS. Make of that what you will, but that gives us another half a year to bicker, argue, and speculate until GW throws the rumormongers another bone

They've been trying to get back to 2nd Edition since before Apocalypse was introduced.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Quick, tell me what makes Zealot different from Fearless.

The reason 40k has so many USRs right now is that many of them are just slight iterations of the other, or with one or two things added to an existing USR.

And that's why 40k needs some very serious effort towards revising and significantly trim Special Rules down, specially those who basically try to represent the same thing. Zealot and Fearless. Rage and Furious Charge. Etc etc.

Except the more you represent and "solve" with the core mechanics and rules, the more watered down the overall play experience is. When every unit and every weapon act in the same
manner, why bother playing anything other than X army?

By contrast, a Swifthawk Agents force heavy on Sea Guard and Shadow Warriors plays radically differeynt to a Wanderers force heavy on Eternal Guard, and Glade Guard.
Why?

Because the special rules on each of those units makes them behave differently.
The forces more or less function the same(Sea Guard are basically Eternal Guard with Bows, Glade Guard are more numerous Shadow Warriors)...yet Arcane Bodkins mean that the Glade Guard can behave in a different manner than the Shadow Warriors and the Sea Guard can be whittling the enemy down before they get into CC while the Eternal Guard can active "Fortress of Boughs" and be far more tanky than they have a right to be.

If done right, you don't need special rules in order for units to behave differently and have a different role on the battlefield. You just have to get things right with the core mechanics. "You need a crap ton of special rules to spice up the game" is typical GW cult mentality. The High Elves 4th Ed. armybook has like four or five special rules in the entire book, and it's probably one of the best armybooks ever written for WHFB.

If you want to make an unit tanky, give them heavy armor. Heavy armor as in real life, not as in GW's world, where you have a 66% chance of dying if hit by a stick while wearing full mail armor from head to toe. Give them a high melee skill that makes them hard to hit, as opposed to "streamlined" to hit mechanics where everything will have at least a 33% chance of hitting a centuries-old elf swordsman.

In short, get the core mechanics right and suddenly you won't find any need for most special rules. If the Glade Guard gets some decent gear (and you have it SO FREAKING EASY in a fantasy setting, "oooh this is magic wood armor made from super-duper-magic tree and tough-as-adamantium magic leaves!", there's your cool armor) and is as hard to hit in melee as they should be when fighting inferior opponents, they won't need any snowflake special rule in order to be tanky.

Yes, because that's what it is. AoS rules are great because it's GW. You caught me.

The GW way is getting rid of the Movement stat in order to "streamline" the game, then adding twenty different special rules afterwards in order to make anything faster than the average guardsman work.

If anyone wants inspiration for some good rules, looking outside the GW sphere is mandatory. GW have again and again proven to be totally incompetent at rule design.

 KommissarKiln wrote:
... but it will be more of a remake of 2nd/3rd edition...

I'm not sure how that would be a thing. 2nd and 3rd edition were very different.